Monday, October 2, 2017

In May 2014, Narendra Modi swept the polls on the campaign of “Achche Din Aa Raha Hai” (Good Time is Arriving)’, and became the Prime Minister of India. In August 2017, his Government completed 40 months (two-third of his term) in power. With just one-third of the term remaining before the Lok Sabha Poll in 2019, PreSense conducted a quick online survey in the middle of September to gain feedback from readers. We received 758 responses from across the nation from different age groups. After removing biased and skewed views, we analysed the remaining 703 qualitatively good responses. Nearly 90 people like industrialists, traders, advocates, chartered accountants, academicians, economists, social workers, and homemakers were also personally contacted, to validate the responses.

Although the sample size is small and the respondents were mainly the internet savvy ‘middle class’ society, the results reveal the general trend and mood of the lower middle class and middle-class people (the aam aadmi). The ruling party and the present government could obtain a more balanced feedback, if they conduct a similar survey on a large scale across the country, covering a larger spectrum of respondents.

Outstanding Achievement

The respondents were asked to indicate one outstanding achievement of the Modi Sarkar. Corruption-free governance, national security, international relations and the concept of demonetisation and GST (Goods and Services Tax) were the top runners.

Failure of Modi Sarkar

The respondents were asked to indicate one big failure of the Modi Sarkar. Lack of job creation, poor economic growth, price rise, petrol price hike, and execution of demonetisation and implementation of GST were the grave negative points.

Interestingly, while the respondents appreciated the concept of demonetisation and GST, they indicated that their implementation caused great inconvenience, both to the common man and to the business community, especially of the Small and Medium Scale segment.

Rating of Current Performance, and in 2019 General Elections

The respondents were asked to rate the Modi governance on a scale of 0 to 10. The rating as given by different age groups is shown in the graphics.

The average rating by all the respondents is 6.5, and in the ‘less than 30’ age group, it is 5.2.

The respondents were asked to indicate the number of seats BJP might bag in the 2019 general elections. The average number by all the respondents is 247. The younger age group indicated 222. We find that the average for all the age groups is below the magic number of 272. That means the respondents do not expect BJP to obtain an absolute majority in 2019. The same opinion was expressed by almost all the other respondents whom we contacted over the telephone for validation and expert views.

Views of the Supporters of Modi

Out of 703 respondents, 622 respondents voted for BJP Government in 2014. Of these, only 73% have now indicated that they would vote in favour of BJP again in 2019. The remaining 27% would either not support, or has not decided yet. This is a warning signal for the ruling party.

Our Observations and Conclusions

Although there is no anti-incumbency mood against Modi Sarkar, the opinions expressed by the respondents indicate some ‘disappointment’. This is explicit in the younger age group.

With this indication, we personally contacted 90 persons from different professional segments across India. Their general view was that demonetisation and GST were very good initiatives, but they felt that their implementation was poorly done, causing disruption and inconvenience to the country’s economic system, and affecting the daily lives of the common people.

Demonetisation: A sizeable number of respondents rated this initiative both positively and negatively. That means that while the concept and its objective was appreciated by the people, its implementation caused acute inconvenience to the people. They observed that the Government has not given any official statement about the outcome (success or failure) of the demonetisation move. This initiative was taken to arrest terrorism funding and black money. The average middle-class citizens question the extent to which these objectives were achieved. The silence of the Government and their ‘no comments’ attitude has added scepticism about its effectiveness, among the people.

GST: The respondents have generally acknowledged and accepted the importance of GST. However, the confusion over the rates applicable, and the software issues have left the people, especially of the business segment, inconvenienced and disgruntled. Citing the impact of GST, even road-side vendors have now increased the prices, causing discontent among the common people. Hotels charge 18% GST on their food items. Increase in prices of even essential commodities, without corresponding increase in income, has adversely affected the average middle-class family. There is apparently no proper monitoring system at the Government level.

“In an urgency to accomplish many things, the Modi Government implemented Demonetisation, and the Bankruptcy Law, revised NPA Rules, arresting black money and GST within a short time and without proper planning, leading to chaos and confusion”, said Prof. K. Prabhakar, Social Economist.

GDP Growth and Employment Generation

There is a steady decline in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) right from the first quarter of the Financial Year (FY) 2016-17. Out of the present GDP growth of 5.7, the service sector grew at 8.7%, the manufacturing sector at 1.2% and the farming sector at 2.3%.

The farming and manufacturing sectors together contribute nearly 80% of the employment generation. During the previous NDA regime (Vajpayee’s), although the overall GDP growth was lower, the small and medium industries generated large employment opportunities.

Dr Subramanian Swamy, well-known economist and Member of Parliament representing BJP, warned in August 2015 itself that the economy was in a ‘tailspin’, threatening an economic crisis. He suggested the formation of a crisis management group consisting of experts, to correct the situation. Unfortunately, his warning was ignored. The economic slowdown, which started in Jan 2016, continues till date. The Government took the risk of implementing demonetisation and GST in this economic situation, adding more stress to the system.

The UK-based daily, The Financial Times wrote, “Modi is, by his own admission, an economic novice. But he has disbanded his Economic Advisory Council and launched demonetisation on his own whimsical initiative. His predecessor, Manmohan Singh, was an economist and yet relied on the group for advice. There is a lesson there for Mr Modi”.

Now, after realising the ground reality, the Government has revived the Economic Advisory Council. During the course of our personal talk, many BJP and RSS leaders have expressed their concern, in anonymity. The party leaders feel that they have been distanced from the Prime Minister and the Party President. They perceive that the Government is run more by bureaucrats than by the ministers.

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

P K Khurana, Consultant from Chandigarh, said that nearly 40% of the SMEs are suffering due to demonetisation followed by GST. Prasanna Venkatesan, a leading chartered accountant criticises the Government for introducing GST without any preparation, leading to chaos. “Under the new system, exporters have to pay the ‘drawback’ in advance, and claim separately. This has affected exports badly”, he added.

Noted economist and Modi supporter, S Gurumurthy observed, “Withdrawal of cash crippled the informal sector, which generates 90% of jobs, and satisfies 95% of its capital requirements from outside the banking system. Aggregate consumption and generation of jobs have stagnated. The informal sector now borrows at 360-480% interest. It is already dealing a big blow to our growth and will continue to do so.”

Slogan Driven Government

There is a general perception among many respondents and experts with whom we spoke that this Government overloads the public with periodic slogans as Achhe Din, Skill India, Make in India, Start Up India, Stand Up India, Swachh Bharat and the like. Unless these slogans are translated into performance, they tend to disillusion. People have not felt their impact in their respective fields. One is not informed of the present status of all these projects.

For example, banks have not taken the Mudra Loans and Stand Up India loans announced by the Prime Minister seriously, to generate entrepreneurs. The Vidyalakshmi Portal launched by the Finance Minister with a big bang in August 2015, to provide education loans to students, is still a non-starter. The schemes to develop agriculture are yet to be implemented effectively.

At the time of demonetisation, the Government had promised that the banks would use the funds to facilitate more entrepreneurs. It has not happened yet.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Although our quick survey was confined to online questionnaires targeting the middle-class society, it has definitely indicated the mood of a critical segment of the society, projecting the perception of the respondents. Modi rode to power based on his promises, and especially due to an anti-incumbency verdict against the scam-tainted Congress-led UPA (United Progressive Alliance) Government. Most of the people still perceive the Modi Sarkar as a ‘clean’ government without any major scams. However, they feel the implementation process is very weak and ineffective.

People do feel annoyed when the government leaders focus only on slogans and chest-thumping even at the time of a crisis. It is acknowledged that some of the government ministries like highways and electricity are doing good work. Unfortunately, these are not projected to the people because of poor media management by the Government, Thanks to the sensationally upbeat news and social media, the negative aspects of the government’s performance are broadcasted.

We observe that a large gap exists between the leadership and the cadre. Even the recent cabinet reshuffle has caused some dissatisfaction among the cadre. There is a perception that more importance is given to bureaucrats and the Rajya Sabha Members, who do not have direct connectivity with people. For example, Arun Jaitley has been entrusted with four major Ministries in spite of his health issues, that could affect his competence. The Finance Ministry itself, which is with Jaitley, needs a full-time Cabinet Minister. The Government appointed full-time Governors for several major states like Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and some of the North-Eastern states, just recently, after many months. The people are getting concerned about the state of affairs in the country under the Modi Sarkar.

There is no anti-incumbency against the Modi Sarkar. However, if corrective steps are not taken on time, the disappointment could slip into an ‘anti-incumbency’ mood. This survey is to be taken only as a ‘warning bell’. The Modi Sarkar should not ignore this warning, in spite of a divided leaderless opposition.

“The economy in the world over, is in stress. Fortunately, India and China are showing positive growth. What we face is only ‘deceleration’ and not ‘de-growth’. The Government should understand the ground reality and step up corrective measures immediately, to avoid further deceleration. The Government should also focus on perception management. The economy alone will decide the politics”, said K T Jagannathan, Associate Editor of The Hindu and senior economic journalist.

Dr B R Ambedkar’s speech
in the Constituent Assembly on 25th November 1949, presenting the
Indian Draft Constitution for approval.
The Draft was approved by the Constituent Assembly on 26th November
1949. The Constitution came into force
with effect from 26th January 1950.

Source: http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol11p11.htm

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, looking back on the work of the Constituent Assembly it
will now be two years, eleven months and seventeen days since it first met on
the 9thof December
1946. During this period the Constituent Assembly has altogether held eleven
sessions. Out of these eleven sessions the first six were spent in passing the
Objectives Resolution and the consideration of the Reports of Committees on
Fundamental Rights, on Union Constitution, on Union Powers, on Provincial
Constitution, on Minorities and on the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes.
The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and the eleventh sessions were devoted to the
consideration of the Draft Constitution. These eleven sessions of the
Constituent Assembly have consumed 165 days. Out of these, the Assembly spent
114 days for the consideration of the Draft Constitution.

Coming to the Drafting Committee, it was elected by the Constituent Assembly on
29thAugust 1947. It
held its first meeting on 30thAugust. Since August 30thit sat for 141 days during which it
was engaged in the preparation of the Draft Constitution. The Draft
Constitution as prepared by the Constitutional Adviser as a text for the Draft
Committee to work upon, consisted of 243 articles and 13 Schedules. The first
Draft Constitution as presented by the Drafting Committee to the Constituent
Assembly contained 315 articles and 8 Schedules. At the end of the
consideration stage, the number of articles in the Draft Constitution increased
to 386. In its final form, the Draft Constitution contains 395 articles and 8
Schedules. The total number of amendments to the Draft Constitution tabled was
approximately 7,635. Of them, the total number of amendments actually moved in
the House were 2,473.

I
mention these facts because at one stage it was being said that the Assembly
had taken too long a time to finish its work, that it was going on leisurely
and wasting public money. It was said to be a case of Nero fiddling while Rome
was burning. Is there any justification for this complaint? Let us note the
time consumed by Constituent Assemblies in other countries appointed for
framing their Constitutions. To take a few illustrations, the American Convention
met on May 25th, 1787 and completed its work on September 17, 1787i.e., within four
months. The Constitutional Convention of Canada met on the 10thOctober 1864 and the Constitution was
passed into law in March 1867 involving a period of two years and five months.
The Australian Constitutional Convention assembled in March 1891 and the
Constitution became law on the 9thJuly
1900, consuming a period of nine years. The South African Convention met in
October, 1908 and the Constitution became law on the 20thSeptember 1909 involving one year's
labour. It is true that we have taken more time than what the American or South
African Conventions did. But we have not taken more time than the Canadian
Convention and much less than the Australian Convention. In making comparisons
on the basis of time consumed, two things must be remembered. One is that the
Constitutions of America, Canada, South Africa and Australia are much smaller
than ours. Our Constitution as I said contains 395 articles while the American
has just seven articles, the first four of which are divided into sections
which total up to 21, the Canadian has 147, Australian 128 and South African
153 sections. The second thing to be remembered is that the makers of the
Constitutions of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa did not have to
face the problem of amendments. They were passed as moved. On the other hand,
this Constituent Assembly had to deal with as many as 2,473 amendments. Having
regard to these facts the charge of dilatoriness seems to me quite unfounded
and this Assembly may well congratulate itself for having accomplished so
formidable a task in so short a time.

Turning to the quality of the work done by the Drafting Committee, Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmed felt it his duty to condemn it outright. In his opinion, the
work done by the Drafting Committee is not only not worthy of commendation, but
is positively below par. Everybody has a right to have his opinion about the
work done by the Drafting Committee and Mr. Naziruddin is welcome to have his
own. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed thinks he is a man of greater talents than any member
of the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee would have welcomed him in
their midst if the Assembly had thought him worthy of being appointed to it. If
he had no place in the making of the Constitution it is certainly not the fault
of the Drafting Committee.

Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmed has coined a new name for the Drafting Committee evidently to
show his contempt for it. He calls it a Drafting committee. Mr. Naziruddin must
no doubt be pleased with his hit. But he evidently does not know that there is
a difference between drift without mastery and drift with mastery. If the
Drafting Committee was drifting, it was never without mastery over the
situation. It was not merely angling with the off chance of catching a fish. It
was searching in known waters to find the fish it was after. To be in search of
something better is not the same as drifting. Although Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed did
not mean it as a compliment to the Drafting committee. I take it as a
compliment to the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee would have been
guilty of gross dereliction of duty and of a false sense of dignity if it had
not shown the honesty and the courage to withdraw the amendments which it
thought faulty and substitute what it thought was better. If it is a mistake, I
am glad the Drafting Committee did not fight shy of admitting such mistakes and
coming forward to correct them.

I am
glad to find that with the exception of a solitary member, there is a general
consensus of appreciation from the members of the Constituent Assembly of the
work done by the Drafting Committee. I am sure the Drafting Committee feels
happy to find this spontaneous recognition of its labours expressed in such
generous terms. As to the compliments that have been showered upon me both by
the members of the Assembly as well as by my colleagues of the Drafting
Committee I feel so overwhelmed that I cannot find adequate words to express
fully my gratitude to them. I came into the Constituent Assembly with no
greater aspiration than to safeguard the interests of he Scheduled Castes. I
had not the remotest idea that I would be called upon to undertake more
responsible functions. I was therefore greatly surprised when the Assembly
elected me to the Drafting Committee. I was more than surprised when the
Drafting Committee elected me to be its Chairman. There were in the Drafting
Committee men bigger, better and more competent than myself such as my friend
Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. I am grateful to the Constituent Assembly and
the Drafting Committee for reposing in me so much trust and confidence and to
have chosen me as their instrument and given me this opportunity of serving the
country. (Cheers)

The
credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to
Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly who
prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the
Drafting Committee. A part of the credit must go to the members of the Drafting
Committee who, as I have said, have sat for 141 days and without whose
ingenuity of devise new formulae and capacity to tolerate and to accommodate
different points of view, the task of framing the Constitution could not have
come to so successful a conclusion. Much greater, share of the credit must go
to Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draftsman of the Constitution. His ability to
put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can
rarely be equalled, nor his capacity for hard work. He has been as acquisition
tot he Assembly. Without his help, this Assembly would have taken many more
years to finalise the Constitution. I must not omit to mention the members of
the staff working under Mr. Mukherjee. For, I know how hard they have worked
and how long they have toiled sometimes even beyond midnight. I want to thank
them all for their effort and their co-operation.(Cheers)

The
task of the Drafting Committee would have been a very difficult one if this
Constituent Assembly has been merely a motley crowd, a tasseleted pavement
without cement, a black stone here and a white stone there is which each member
or each group was a law unto itself. There would have been nothing but chaos.
This possibility of chaos was reduced to nil by the existence of the Congress
Party inside the Assembly which brought into its proceedings a sense of order
and discipline. It is because of the discipline of the Congress Party that the
Drafting Committee was able to pilot the Constitution in the Assembly with the
sure knowledge as to the fate of each article and each amendment. The Congress
Party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the
Draft Constitution in the Assembly.

The
proceedings of this Constituent Assembly would have been very dull if all
members had yielded to the rule of party discipline. Party discipline, in all
its rigidity, would have converted this Assembly into a gathering of yes' men.
Fortunately, there were rebels. They were Mr. Kamath, Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, Mr.
Sidhva, Prof. K.T. Shah and Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. The points they raised
were mostly ideological. That I was not prepared to accept their suggestions,
does not diminish the value of their suggestions nor lessen the service they
have rendered to the Assembly in enlivening its proceedings. I am grateful to
them. But for them, I would not have had the opportunity which I got for
expounding the principles underlying the Constitution which was more important
than the mere mechanical work of passing the Constitution.

Finally, I must thank you Mr. President for the way in which you have conducted
the proceedings of this Assembly. The courtesy and the consideration which you
have shown to the Members of the Assembly can never be forgotten by those who
have taken part in the proceedings of this Assembly. There were occasions when
the amendments of the Drafting Committee were sought to be barred on grounds
purely technical in their nature. Those were very anxious moments for me. I am,
therefore, specially grateful to you for not permitting legalism to defeat the
work of Constitution-making.

As
much defence as could be offered to the constitution has been offered by my
friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr.. T.T. Krishnamachari. I shall not
therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however
good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are
called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However had a Constitution may be,
it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a
good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature
of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such
as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the
working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political
parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and
their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will
they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the
revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no
prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any
judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people
and their parties are likely to play.

The
condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist
Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it
because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no'. The Communist
Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary
democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if
they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize
or socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second
thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the
Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their
Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not
merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.

These
are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say
that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of
political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private
property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure
from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the
limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the
principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation
or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the
members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for
embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the
Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so
great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some
very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In
one place he has said:-

"We may
consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the
majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more
than the inhabitants of another country."

In
another place, he has said :

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the national cannot
be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights
gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public,
may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is
most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally
inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth
more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by
ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on
future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the
earth belongs to the dead and not the living;"

I
admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true.
There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from
this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame,
even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to
examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution. The
Assembly has not only refrained from putting a seal of finality and
infallibility upon this Constitution as in Canada or by making the amendment of
the Constitution subject tot he fulfilment of extraordinary terms and
conditions as in America or Australia, but has provided a most facile procedure
for amending the Constitution. I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution
to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the
circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile
procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied
with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot
obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise
in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed
to be shared by the general public.

There
is only one point of constitutional import to which I propose to make a
reference. A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too much of
centralization and that the States have been reduced to Municipalities. It is
clear that this view is not only an exaggeration, but is also founded on a
misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the
relation between the Centre and the States, it is necessary to bear in mind the
fundamental principle on which it rests. The basic principle of Federalism is
that the Legislative and Executive authority is partitioned between the Centre
and the States not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution
itself. This is what Constitution does. The States under our Constitution are
in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive
authority. The Centre and the States are co-equal in this matter. It is
difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called centralism. It may be
that the Constitution assigns to the Centre too large a field for the operation
of its legislative and executive authority than is to be found in any other
federal Constitution. It may be that the residuary powers are given to the
Centre and not to the States. But these features do not form the essence of
federalism. The chief mark of federalism as I said lies in the partition of the
legislative and executive authority between the Centre and the Units by the
Constitution. This is the principle embodied in our constitution. There can be
no mistake about it. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the States have been
placed under the Centre. Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of
that partition. Nor can the Judiciary. For as has been well said:

"Courts may modify, they cannot replace. They can revise earlier
interpretations as new arguments, new points of view are presented, they can
shift the dividing line in marginal cases, but there are barriers they cannot
pass, definite assignments of power they cannot reallocate. They can give a
broadening construction of existing powers, but they cannot assign to one
authority powers explicitly granted to another."

The first charge of
centralization defeating federalism must therefore fall.

The
second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override the
States. This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution
for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in
mind. The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature
of the constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to
emergencies only. The second consideration is : Could we avoid giving
overriding powers to the Centre when an emergency has arisen? Those who do not
admit the justification for such overriding powers to the Centre even in an
emergency, do not seem to have a clear idea of the problem which lies at the
root of the matter. The problem is so clearly set out by a writer in that
well-known magazine "The Round Table" in its issue of December 1935
that I offer no apology for quoting the following extract from it. Says the
writer :

"Political systems are a complex
of rights and duties resting ultimately on the question, to whom, or to what
authority, does the citizen owe allegiance. In normal affairs the question is
not present, for the law works smoothly, and a man, goes about his business
obeying one authority in this set of matters and another authority in that. But
in a moment of crisis, a conflict of claims may arise, and it is then apparent
that ultimate allegiance cannot be divided. The issue of allegiance cannot be
determined in the last resort by a juristic interpretation of statutes. The law
must conform to the facts or so much the worse for the law. When all formalism
is stripped away, the bare question is, what authority commands the residual
loyalty of the citizen. Is it the Centre or the Constituent State ?"

The
solution of this problem depends upon one's answer to this question which is
the crux of the problem. There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast
majority of the people, the residual loyalty of the citizen in an emergency
must be to the Centre and not to the Constituent States. For it is only the
Centre which can work for a common end and for the general interests of the
country as a whole. Herein lies the justification for giving to all Centre
certain overriding powers to be used in an emergency. And after all what is the
obligation imposed upon the Constituent States by these emergency powers? No more
than this – that in an emergency, they should take into consideration alongside
their own local interests, the opinions and interests of the nation as a whole.
Only those who have not understood the problem, can complain against it.

Here
I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I
feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections
thereon. On 26thJanuary
1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers). What would happen
to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it
again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India
was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the
independence she had. Will she lost it a second time? It is this thought which
makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that
not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the
infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by
Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from
the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their
King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade India and fight
against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki Kings.
When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha
noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul
Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh,
their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom.
In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against
the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.

Will
history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This
anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old
enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political
parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indian place the
country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not
know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country,
our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for
ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be
determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.(Cheers)

On
the 26thof January
1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day
would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The
same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic
Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lost it again. This
is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the
first.

It is
not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was
studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either
elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know
Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas
discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but
Parliaments – but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary
Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements,
rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting
by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization,Res
Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied
by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from
the rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.

This
democratic system India lost. Will she lost it a second time? I do not know.
But it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its
long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy
giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy
to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a
landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much
greater.

If we
wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we
do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to
constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It
means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must
abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When
there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and
social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional
methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no
justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but
the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

The
second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has
given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not
"to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him
with power which enable him to subvert their institutions". There is
nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long
services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well
said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O'Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost
of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no
nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more
necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in
India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays
a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the
politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to
the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure
road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

The
third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We
must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political
democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.
What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes
liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a
trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the
other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced
from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and
equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce
the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill
individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy
of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual
initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural
course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin
by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in
Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India
a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society
in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in
abject poverty. On the 26thof
January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics
we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.
In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one
vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our
social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one
value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long
shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we
continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political
democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible
moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of
political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously built up.

The
second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity.
what does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of
all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity
and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How
difficult it is, can be realized from the story related by James Bryce in his volume
on American Commonwealth about the United States of America.

The
story is- I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself- that-

"Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at
its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to
introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and
an eminent New England divine proposed the words `O Lord, bless our
nation'. Accepted one afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was
brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by
the laity to the word nation' as importing too definite a recognition of
national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words
`O Lord, bless these United States."

There
was so little solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred
that the people of America did not think that they were a nation. If the people
of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it
is for Indians to think that they are a nation. I remember the days when
politically-minded Indians, resented the expression "the people of
India". They preferred the expression "the Indian nation." I am
of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great
delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation?
The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and
psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall
realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and
means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very
difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The
United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are
anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social
life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy
between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish
to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is
a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats
of paint.

These
are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very
pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this
country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of
burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of
their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the
significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed.
They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the
down-trodden classes must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or
class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day
of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided
against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for
the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the
country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for
the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the
establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I
have laid so much stresses on them.

I do
not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of
joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great
responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the
British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have
nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong.
Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new
ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are
prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is
Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the
Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of
the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in
the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people
to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak
in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I
know of no better.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

(Reproduced verbatim from the Cover Story of ezine PreSense April 2015 edition)

With the 125th birth
anniversary of Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956) happening this
year, we remember him as yet another legend forgotten in the annals of Indian
history. He was the architect of the Indian Constitution, which has stood the
test of time, braving various challenges of Indian politics and governance. He
was a great philosopher, economist, lawyer, political activist and social
reformer.

His Early Days - No Peon, No
Water

Bhimrao Ramji Sakpal Ambavadekar
(later Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar) was born to a Maratha family, as the 14th
child to his parents. His community was considered ‘untouchable’ in the society.
As a school student, he underwent much humiliation due to this social
practice of caste discrimination. It is distressing to read about his
personal experience because of ‘untouchability’ prevailing then.

Quote

While in the school, I knew that
children of the touchable classes, when they felt thirsty, could go out to the
water tap, open it, and quench their thirst. All that was necessary was the
permission of the teacher. But my position was separate. I could not touch the
tap; and unless it was opened for it by a touchable person, it was not possible
for me to quench my thirst. In my case the permission of the teacher was not
enough. The presence of the school peon was necessary, for he was the only
person whom the class teacher could use for such a purpose. If the peon was not
available, I had to go without water. The situation can be summed up in the
statement—no peon, no water.

Unquote

Mahadev Ambedkar, his Brahmin
teacher was sympathetic towards him and supported him. He changed his original
name in the school records from ‘Bhimrao Ramji Sakpal Ambavadekar’ to ‘Bhimrao
Ramji Ambedkar’, adding his own surname of Ambedkar.

With his father’s encouragement,
Dr Ambedkar completed his graduation in Bombay. Although he was opposed to ‘Manu
Smriti’, his writings reveal his deep knowledge of the ancient scriptures,
Vedas and the Upanishads. Even in the Constituent Assembly, he favoured
Sanskrit as the national language, although it was not accepted by the
majority.

Support from the Baroda
Ruler

Sayajirao Gaekwad III

Sayajirao Gaekwad III, the ruler
of Baroda was a social reformer who supported poor students from the
‘depressed class’ (untouchables). When he met Bhimrao Ambedkar, he
recognised his potential and offered him a scholarship to study abroad. Ambedkar
completed his studies, including a doctorate at the Columbia University (USA),
and at the London School of Economics (UK). In spite of the caste
discriminations and untouchability practices, some good-hearted people like
Mahadev Ambedkar and Sayaji Rao III recognised Ambedkar’s potential and helped
him to move to the higher levels in academics. Ambedkar proved to be an
outstanding student wherever he studied.

On his return to India, he served
the Baroda ruler for some time. In 1918, he became the Professor of
Political Economy at the Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics in Bombay.
Even though he was popular with the students, the professors objected to his
reformist activities such as sharing the same drinking-water jug that they all
used.

Round Table Conference

Dr Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi in the Round Table Conference

The British Government invited
leaders from different political parties to the Round Table Conferences held in
1930-32, to draft a new Constitution leading to the self-rule by Indians. Dr
Ambedkar attended all the three Round Table Conferences. Mahatma Gandhi
did not attend the first Conference due to a difference in opinion withDr
Ambedkar. During the First Round Table Conference held in November 1930,
Dr Ambedkar proposed the concept of a ‘Separate Electorate’ for the ‘Depressed
Class’ (Untouchables). He argued that the problems faced by the untouchables
were not social problems but political problems. More than 20% of India’s
population were from the untouchables category. Dr Ambedkar pleaded
that the problems of such a sizeable portion of the population could not be
ignored. He wanted a proportionate political power to resolve the issue.
He suggested a ‘Separate Electorate’ for the Depressed Class, meaning
thereby that their representatives could be elected only by the untouchables
and not by all the others. He even quoted from the Mahabharata that the kings
and the ministers therein were from all communities, (including Sudras, which
is equivalent to the socially deprived class).

Since Mahatma Gandhihelda different view, he did not agree with the suggestion. He opposed itin the Second Round Table Conference. He feared that allowing a
‘Separate Electorate’ might divide the Hindu community further. He
believed in a change in the social mindset of the people to eradicate
untouchability.

Poona Pact

British Prime Minister, Ramsay
MacDonald made an Award in 1932 known as the ‘Communal Award’, providing
‘Separate Electorate for Muslims, Christians, Upper Caste Hindus, Lower Caste
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Depressed Class’. The Depressed Class
(Untouchables) could then elect their own representatives to the various provinces
under the British rule. This was opposed by Mahatma Gandhi on the ground that
it would disintegrate the Hindus. Gandhi was then in Pune Yerwada prison.
He went on an indefinite fast from 20th Sep 1932 against the
‘Separate Electorate’ for Depressed Class. After some lengthy
negotiations, Ambedkar and Gandhi reached an agreement on 24th
September, 1932 to have a single Hindu electorate, with Untouchables
having seats reserved within it. This is called the ‘Poona Pact’. The text uses
the term "Depressed Classes" to denote Untouchables. It was later
called the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the India Act 1935, and then
the Indian Constitution of 1950.

Reserve Bank Conceptualised

The Reserve Bank
of India was founded on 1st April 1935 to address the economic troubles of the
nation after the First World War. RBI was conceptualised as per the guidelines,
working style and outlook presented by Dr Ambedkar as written in his book, “The
Problem of the Rupee – Its origin and its solution.”

Forming Political Party

In 1936, Ambedkar founded the
Independent Labour Party, which contested in the 1937 Bombay elections to the
Central Legislative Assembly for the 13 reserved and 4 general seats and
securing 11 and 3 seats respectively. Right from 1916, Dr Ambedkar began uniting all
the untouchables in India. In July 1942, he organised a national conference at
Nagpur under the banner of Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF). More than 75,000
scheduled caste people, including 25,000 women participated. In his
historic speech, he demanded self respect and freedom. Later, SCF transformed
itself into the Republican Party of India (RPI).

Joining
the Government

In 1942, he was
invited to join Viceroy’s Executive Council as Labour Member with three
additional portfolios. As Labour Member, he influenced the Britishto
concede13% representation to Scheduled Caste (SC). The British
gave just 8.33%. (Later, while writing the Constitution, he made a
provision of 15% for SCs.) He continued in this position till 1946. He
was responsible for reducing the working hours of labourers from 12 hours to 8.
He also introduced the concept of Provident Fund and Dearness Allowance. He
created the employment exchanges. He introduced maternity leave for
women. As a believer of free market, he introduced the Gold Standard.
He was the brain behindthe Hirakud Dam and the Damodar Valley
Project. He was also the brain behind the India’s Water Policy and the
Electric Power Planning.

Constituent Assembly

Dr Ambedkar with Members of Drafting Committee

Under the Cabinet Mission Plan
1946 of the British Government, a Constituent Assembly was set up in 1946 in
the then undivided India to frame the Constitution for India. The members were
elected from different provinces. Since Dr Ambedkar could not be elected
from Mumbai, he was elected from East Bengal with the help of the Muslim
League. These districts were later identified for inclusion in Pakistan.
To prevent Dr Ambedkar from leaving the Constituent Assembly, Dr Rajendra
Prasad (President of the Constituent Assembly) wrote a letter on 30th
June 1947 to the then Prime Minister of Maharashtra (as he was called then)
to get him elected from Maharashtra Province. Thus, he got elected to the
Constituent Assembly again.

He was made the Chairman of the
Constitution Drafting Committee on 29th August 1947. Although there
were 7 members in the Committee, he was practically the only one shouldering
the entire responsibility and burden of drafting.

The Draft Constitution was
presented by Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and was discussed and
adopted by the Members. The Constitution was adopted in its complete form
on 26th November 1949 and came into force on 26th January
1950, which is celebrated as the Republic Day of India. While adopting
the Constitution, all the members praised the extraordinary work done by Dr
Ambedkar in drafting the Constitution.

Dr Ambedkar served as India’s
first Law Minister from 15th August 1947 in the Nehru Cabinet.
Due to his differences of opinionon the Hindu Code
Bill, which deprived equal rights to women, he resigned from the cabinet
in September 1951.

Defeated in the Elections

During the first General
Elections in 1951 to Lok Sabha, he contested from Bombay North, but lost to a
little known Congress candidate, Narayan Kajrolkar, who was once his assistant.

He became a Member of Rajya Sabha
as a nominated member in 1952 and continued as a member till his death.

In 1954, he contested again in a
by-election held in Bombay Bandra. Here too, he was placed third and lost
to a Congress candidate.

Sadly, Dr Ambedkar could not sit
in the First Lok Sabha, the Constitution for which was created by him. The
Second General Election was held in 1957 after his death in 1956. He could therefore
not enter the Lok Sabha at all.

Conversion to Buddhism

Dr Ambedkar and his wife during ‘Dhamma Diksha’ at Nagpur

He declaredhis intention
to convert to another religion, public as a large section of the society was
treated asuntouchable by the Hindu section. Although Christians and
Muslims approached him convert to their religion, he preferred Buddhism.
On 14th October 1956,Ambedkar, along with his
wife, converted to Buddhism in the presence of a monk. Thereafter, he
persuaded thousands of people of the Scheduled Caste to convert to Buddhism.
He passed away on 6th Dec 1956 in his sleep.

His Bold Views

He was a great scholar and
philosopher. He was bold in expressing his views. He preferred Sanskrit
as the National Official Language. However, it was not approved in the
Constituent Assembly.

When Prime Minister Nehru wanted
him to draft Article 370, he refused as he felt that it would be against the
interest of the nation.

While all the modern historians
argued in favour of the Aryan theory, he wrote that there was no race by that
name. He also said that the theory that Aryans invaded India through Khyber Pass
was false.

He openly criticised Mahatma
Gandhi on various issues and even wrote a book titled ‘What Congress and Gandhi
have done to the untouchables’. In response to this book, Rajaji and K
Santhanam wrote a book ‘Ambedkar refuted’, defending Mahatma Gandhi.

Media Report – Dr Ambedkar for Sanskrit as Official Language of India

Forgotten Legend

There could be several people who
had differences of opinion with Dr Ambedkar. But no one can deny the fact
that Dr Ambedkar formed his views, based on his own experiences and despite the
harassment he faced in the society. But for this legendary personality,
India would not have got the time-tested and the much-acclaimed Constitution.
Due to various reasons, he was not fairly recognised in the past by the
Government and by the society. In 1990, he was conferred the Bharat Ratna
Award posthumously, under pressure from political parties.

In response to an RTI activist,
Rusen Kumar (Raipur), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting disclosed recently
that a documentary film on Dr Ambedkar made by the Government of India and
Government of Maharashtra 14 years ago, is yet to be telecast through
Doordarshan for public viewing.

The Indian society little
supported the architect of Modern India when he was alive. It is time to
stand up and salute him for his exemplary contribution to Modern India because
although Dr Ambedkar was an ‘exclusive member’, belonging to the ‘Depressed
Class’, his lifelong work, activities and contribution were inclusive and to the
benefit of the nation as a whole.

Social Profiles

About the author

This site is authored by K. Srinivasan, Founder of Prime Point Foundation, Chennai. Srinivasan is a communication consultant. He is also a social activist, deeply interested in encouraging youngsters towards good politics and governance. Every year, he is also presenting Sansad Ratna Awards to the top performing Lok Sabha Members.